QUINCY — The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has granted a request from the Grant County PUD to include property in the Sunland Estates development inside the PUD project boundary.

The ruling will allow the PUD to use the property to access the utility-owned riverbank, pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by the homeowners association in Sunland Estates. The lawsuit contends the PUD’s intention to turn the land, known as Lot 51, into an access point for the PUD violates the homeowners association rules.

Because the lawsuit is still pending, “the Sunland HOA does not have any comment on the FERC ruling at this time,” wrote Dean Sprayberry, the association spokesperson.

The ruling was issued Jan. 9. Utility district officials had asked for the land to be added to the project boundary so it could be used by PUD employees to access the shoreline. “Grant PUD states that Lot 51 also serves as an important community and public access point to the project shoreline adjacent to the northern end of the Sunland Estates development.”

As of now, “Grant PUD does not anticipate proposing any formalized public access through Lot 51 in the update to its recreation resources management plan,” the FERC order said. “Grant PUD states it has not formalized the use of Lot 51 for public access to the project shoreline, nor has it posted any signage to that effect.”

But “we note, however, that providing or permitting public access to project lands and waters via licensee-owned lands is consistent with a licensee’s obligation to foster public recreation.” The order said if PUD officials decided to use Lot 51 for public access, the utility would have to amend the existing recreation plan.

The request also drew comments in opposition. The PUD does own another piece of property along the shoreline, but PUD officials said Rattlesnake Cove, about a mile and a half downriver, wasn’t as suitable for some of the equipment necessary to maintain the shoreline. Commenters disputed that. “They allege Lot 51 is not, and never has been, needed for project purposes. Several Sunland Estates landowners allege that although Grant PUD has owned Lot 51 since 2001, it has never identified the lot as needed for project purposes until now.”

Commenters who opposed the proposal said Lot 51 wasn’t suitable for access, being a narrow vacant lot with residences on either side.

The FERC order said the commission usually requires licensees to control land access to the project. “To the extent possible, we expect Grant PUD to coordinate such use with adjacent landowners and consider measures to minimize any potential disruption to the community.”

Cheryl Schweizer can be reached via email at [email protected].